1 / 14

Answering Queries Using Views: The Last Frontier

Answering Queries Using Views: The Last Frontier. The Problem. Given a query Q and a set of view definitions V 1 ,…,V n : Is it possible to answer Q using only the V’s? V 1 (A,B) :- cites(A,B), cites(B,A) V 2 (C,D) :- sameTopic(C,D), cites(C,C1), cites(D,D1) Query:

medea
Download Presentation

Answering Queries Using Views: The Last Frontier

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Answering Queries Using Views:The Last Frontier

  2. The Problem Given a query Q and a set of view definitions V1,…,Vn: Is it possible to answer Q using only the V’s? V1(A,B) :- cites(A,B), cites(B,A) V2(C,D) :- sameTopic(C,D), cites(C,C1), cites(D,D1) Query: q(x,y) :- sameTopic(x,y), cites(x,y), cites(y,x) Query rewriting: q’(X,Y) :- V1(X,Y), V2(X,Y) Unfolding of the rewriting: q’’(X,Y) :- cites(X,Y), cites(Y,X), sameTopic(X,Y), cites(X,Z), cites(Y,W)

  3. Another Example French cars data source: DB1(name, year) :- ForSale(name, year, “France”, “auto”), year > 1990. Car review database: DB2(product, review) :- Review(product, review, “auto”) Query: q(X,Y,R):- ForSale(X,Y,C,”auto”), Review(X,R,”auto”), Y > 1985. Query plan: q’(X,Y,R) :- DB1(X,Y), DB2(X,R) Note: rewriting is not equivalent to the query, but we can’t do any better.

  4. Motivation Query optimization Physical data independence Theory Answering queries using views Data warehouse design Algorithms Data integration Commercial systems Semantic data caching Survey paper: http://www.cs.washington.edu/homes/ alon/views-survey.ps Web-site management

  5. Dimensions of the Problem • View definition language • Query language • Semantic constraints (e.g., FD’s, inclusions) • Completeness/soundness of the views • Output: query execution plan or logical plan. • Equivalent or maximally contained rewriting.

  6. Usability Conditions Query: q(X,Z) :- r(X,Y), s(Y,Z), t(X,Z), Y > 5. What can go wrong? V1(A,B) :- r(A,C), s(C1,B) (join predicate not applied) V2(A,B) :- r(A,C), s(C,B), C > 1 (predicate too weak). V3(A,B) :- r(A,B), r1(A,B) (irrelevant condition). V4(A) :- r(A,B), s(B,C), t(A,C), B > 5: needed argument is projected out. Can be recovered if we have a functional dependency t: A --> C. See [Larson & Yang, 87 and LMSS-95] for conditions.

  7. Formal Definition: Rewriting Given a query Q and a set of view definitions V1,…,Vn Q’ is a rewriting of the query using V’s if it refers only to the views or to interpreted predicates. Q’ is an equivalent rewriting of Q using the V’s if Q’ is equivalent to Q. Q’ is a maximally-contained rewriting of Q w.r.t. L using the V’s if there is no other Q’’ such that: Q’’ strictly contains Q’, and Q’’ is contained in Q.

  8. A Basic Decidability Result • For conjunctive queries with no interpreted predicates, the following holds: • If Q has an equivalent rewriting using V, then there exists one with no more conjuncts than Q. [Levy, Mendelzon, Sagiv & Srivastava, PODS95] • The rewriting problem is NP-complete. • Bound holds even if views have interpreted predicates. • Maximally-contained rewriting: union of all conjunctive rewritings of the length of the query or less.

  9. Certain Answers Given: A query Q, View definitions V1,…Vn, Extensions of the views: v1,…vn. Consider the set of databases D that are consistent with V1,…Vn and v1,…vn. The tuple t is a certain answer to Q if it would be an answer in every database in D. Note: an equivalent rewriting provides all certain answers.

  10. Finding All Answers from Views If a rewriting is equivalent: you definitely get all answers Maximal containment: only w.r.t. a specific query language. So what is the complexity of finding all the answers? [Abiteboul & Duschka, PODS-98], [Grahne and Mendelzon, ICDT-99]: surprisingly hard! Certain answers: Given specific extensions v1,…vn to the view, is the tuple t is an answer in every database D that is consistent with the extensions v1,…,vn?

  11. Why & When is it Hard? • Sources can be: • sound (open world assumption) • complete • sound and complete (closed-world assumption) • If sources are either all sound or all complete, then • maximally-contained rewriting exists. • If the query contains interpreted predicates, the • problem is NP-hard. • If sources are sound and complete, the problem is NP-complete.

  12. Graph Colorability as Views • V1(X) :- edge(X,Y) (set of nodes in the graph) • V2(Y) :- color(X,Z) (the set {red, green, blue}) • V3(X,Y):- edge(X,Y) (the set of edges). Query: • q(a) :- edge(X,Y), color(X,Z), color(Y,Z)

  13. Potpourri • System-R optimization extensions: [Tsatalos et al., VLDB94], Chaudhuri et al., ICDE-95]. • VLDB-98: Oracle’s implemented algorithm. • Infinite # of views [LRU, PODS-96, VPVLDB-97]. • Polynomial-time cases: [Chekuri & Rajaraman, ICDT-97]. • Description logics: [Calvanese et al. 99]. • Inclusion dependencies [Gryz, ICDE-97]. • Unions in views [Afrati et al, ICDT-99, Duscha’s thesis]. • Semi-structured data: [VP, Sigmod-99].

  14. Containment Queries over Views[Millstein, Levy, Friedman, PODS-2000] • Motivation: equivalence of queries to data integration systems. • Two different queries can be equivalent given a specific set of sources. • Certain(Q1) = Certain(Q2)? • Pp2 for the conjunctive query case. • Is decidable in some cases where the maximally-contained rewriting is recursive.

More Related